What the World Needs is Less Religion, and More Humanitarians...Desperately

I just went and read the last 3 pages there are many questions... the part about the debate is this and I have responded.

Now, here's the thing, I really DON'T want to spend my time in a formal debate, so I am willing to say agree to disagree. This will take up much
time, so an agreement here would suit me more; however:

If that does not suit you, and you absolutely insist, I will debate you. You must agree however to stop with the childish insults and accusations for
which I've had to retaliate. I feel like I'm debating with a crybaby. No more name calling either.

I assume the premise will be 'Humanism: The Harbinger of a New Age, or the Destruction of Our Civility'. Yeah, sounds good doesn't it? Sometimes I
just surprise myself. The alternative was 'Humanism: Good or Bad'. I like the first one better.

So the questions I see are do I agree to make personal remarks- I answered OK

The second is the title. I think we should use the sentence I proposed from your literature that way it doesn't come from me or you but a third
party source.

If there's another question. there's no need to be mysterious please ask me again.

No, that's not it. If you're going to accuse me of not reading your posts, you might want to make sure that you read mine.

I suggested 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism'.

And you proposed this yesterday, and you even admitted it just a couple of posts ago. Please stop exaggerating to make your points.

I'm headed out right now, but if you choose to accept the title theme to be 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism' (I'm thinking on how the world
is today, whether we have moral relativity or absolute morals), I will write junglejake when I get back.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by bigbert81]

I find it insulting that it's taken me so long to get an answer from you, and this is the second post in which I asked a question regarding the
theme. I saw your little trick you were going for with the old title theme, so I proposed this one, and am amazed how many times I've had to post
this and ask for an answer.

All that I am saying in the end is that I am not so arrogant as to think that my morals are the absolute set of rules by which humanity should hold
itself.

I believe in certain things, but I would never force them upon others.

I believe in the free will of all men and women to do as they wish. This is the very antithesis to communist ideologues!! Communism held that the
state knows the absolute morality, the absolute truth. Communism held that no man's views are correct if they dissent from the views of ths state.
Relativism allows the free expression of thought and mind. Relativism allows the unharnessed potential of human thought to flow.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree whammy: Even if I believe I have the answer, I will not force it upon others. Apparently you wish to force
your idea of morality onto others?

To use the example of a pregnancy resultant of rape again, I would not seek to take any action directly or indirectly (by voting for a law), to stop
the woman from doing as she pleases. Would you?

I know you consider a fetus to have human rights and I respect your point of view, even if I disagree with it. You know why I do that? Im a
relativist. If I were a moral absolutist, I would be shouting at you with venom for supporting what I believed to be an immoral ground.

I believe in the free will of all men and women to do as they wish. This is the very antithesis to communist ideologues!! Communism held that the
state knows the absolute morality, the absolute truth. Communism held that no man's views are correct if they dissent from the views of ths state.
Relativism allows the free expression of thought and mind. Relativism allows the unharnessed potential of human thought to flow.

This quote is very well said.

The debate will go on, and the topic will be 'Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism' where I am glad to not necessarily have you in my corner
(unless this turned into a group debate, in which I would be very glad to have you there), but glad that you share the same ideology as myself.

Here is where we fundamentally disagree whammy: Even if I believe I have the answer, I will not force it upon others. Apparently you wish to force
your idea of morality onto others?

You are fundamentally wrong about me sir. I don't force anything on anyone. Thats why we have courts and police. NEWSFLASH courts force their (our)
ideas of morality on others everyday .

I know you consider a fetus to have human rights and I respect your point of view, even if I disagree with it. You know why I do that? Im a
relativist. If I were a moral absolutist, I would be shouting at you with venom for supporting what I believed to be an immoral ground.

I can respect your right to have a point of view - while having the utmost venom toward your point of view.

Relativism is EVIL - You seem to be a nice guy. See that was easy.

I wonder if you will consider this scenario, relatively speaking that is...

If the government passed a law that forces women to have rape babies - Then by the logic you used against me - it is it wrong for you to shout about
forcing women to have rape babies. After all you would be trying to force your view on others. We can't have that.

I guess someone liked it bert. I suppose there are some folks that read this that support me. Is that such an alien idea to you? I'm not the only one
who shares my stated values. They are the same values laid down in the United States Constitution.

I dont think it is wrong for me to advocate a position, because that is an expounding of my philosophy and ideas.

However I would hate to vote for a law which forced women to have children of rape, because this would be an imposition of my will upon the woman by
the democratic process of majority rule.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that we must demarkate a line which morality must not cross in respect to natural rights. You must not be able to
impose your will upon anyone, and neither must I.

Each person must choose what their morals are and stick to them. I have no right, I have no inclination to force a woman to have a baby resultant of
rape, neither do I want to force her to abort the fetus.

I would love to believe that there exists a universal set of morals. However widespread belief in this would only lead to more sectarianism.

For example, if I truly believed that eating eggs was a most immoral activity, I would be using any means (including terrorist actions) to stop the
eating of eggs. However, if I believed that eating eggs was an immoral activity, but simultaneously acknowledge that my morality may not be the
ultimate code of good, then I cannot be militant or dogmatic.

I use "eating eggs" as a ridiculous example of course, you could replace that with any action and the sentiment would be the same.

Originally posted by bigbert81
Quick question, why did you get a star for that post?

*comes out of the shadows*

I starred both you and BW for your posts about the titles because 1). I am extremely excited to see this tentative debate as it is a subject I do not
know much about and hoping I learn something and 2). I like seeing two people come to an agreement on something after them being involved in a
mini-feud. Ya, I'm a sap and an indiscriminate star-giver but I like seeing two people be mature and come to terms on things.

I do see that natural rights could be seen as a form of moral absolutism.

However is it correct to impose even natural rights upon others?

I believe that natural rights are the ultimate set of rights that must be inherent to mankind. However who agrees with me? Will a radical islamist
agree with me?

Indubitably, a very interesting point though. Would I consider freedom and natural rights to be an absolutely moral set of rights? I think they do,
but at the same time those are some of the only things I belive ought to be universally held. Perhaps youre right, perhaps I am an absolutist.

But I still get lost in the details... Would absolutism not lead to people seeking to impose their will upon others? Would absolute belief in pro-life
stances not lead to forcing your idea of morality onto a woman?

Originally posted by Electricneo
Humainitarianism is good but it is still a religion without rituals.

I beg to differ:

I'd say religion is simply humanitarianism with a users manual for those that don't really understand the concept clearly - but, looking around
today, I'd have to say the manual needs updating. What makes you think only 'religious' people are capable of humanistarianism? Most people don't
need a book to differentiate between right and wrong.

I do see that natural rights could be seen as a form of moral absolutism.

However is it correct to impose even natural rights upon others?

I believe that natural rights are the ultimate set of rights that must be inherent to mankind. However who agrees with me? Will a radical islamist
agree with me?

Sincere Thanks! I worked for it

But we agree as did the founding Fathers of the USA that they are "inalienable" rights. Ha you are English right? Sorry- but the English were
imposing taxes on us with out representation. So we accused them of violating our God given natural rights.

Indubitably, a very interesting point though. Would I consider freedom and natural rights to be an absolutely moral set of rights? I think they do,
but at the same time those are some of the only things I belive ought to be universally held. Perhaps youre right, perhaps I am an absolutist.

But I still get lost in the details... Would absolutism not lead to people seeking to impose their will upon others? Would absolute belief in pro-life
stances not lead to forcing your idea of morality onto a woman?

Hey man we all get lost in the details. Who is perfect? No one but God in my view. All I am saying is there are objective standards - We don't always
get it right - we are affected by self interest and greed etc etc. - But when we really try to- we can feel justice somehow internally.

It is somehow natural and yet evolution does not explain it. Evolution says we fight to survive. Morality tells us we "ought" to do something even
if it is not to our advantage.

Well, since this debate is not happening apparently, here is some of the stuff you've said in this thread that I find to be wrong.

Disagreements over morals does not make them relative at all. The morals do not change because mens perceptions of them do.

Perceptions are what create morals, Whammy. This is how morals are made in the first place.

Because you believe that the woman has an absolute moral right to control her own body. If your morality were relative you would not be offended by it
at all, you would say oh whatever... its no skin off my nose

But Whammy, you are appealing to OUR morals and making them appear to be 'absolute', when in fact, they are the morals which you and I have accepted
through our lives.

For you to say absolutism or anything is wrong - then you are saying that you know what is right - aren't you?.

No Whammy, not wrong, but INACCURATE. You are confusing the 2 words there. And I can say this because it's according to MY morals and beliefs.

Also consider this ss. For a relativist to have an opinion about anything you have to smuggle the objective moral law in the back door. How can you
say that A is better than B if you do not appeal to standard of truth? What does "better" mean?

Wrong again Whammy. Firstly, you should clarify what you mean by 'objective moral standard'. Secondly, people view right and wrong by the morals
they learn through life and influences. You are bridging a gap that is not crossable.

Is relativism right? Or is relativism just relative? Only to a relativist I guess.
Moral Relativism is circular logic.

Once again, Whammy, you are confusing 'right' with accuracy.

Relativism truly ends up with no morality at all - pure preferences.

Based off of what people are taught and what they learn through various factors of growing up.

Communism is founded on it

No, Whammy, it's not. I could just as easily say the same thing about your moral absolutism views, feeling that you are right and have
'discovered' the right ways and morals in the universe forces you to assume that anybody who disagrees with you is wrong or evil. Communism takes
people's freedoms by forcing them to behave or act in a certain way developed by oppressors who share the same type of belief system you do.

Without morals being relative, everyone in the world might as well have believed that Hitler's ways were right, but it's moral relativism that
stopped him. Differing beliefs. It's moral relativism that keeps the world honest, not absolutism, because, after all, who determines what the
absolutes will be?

Would you have the same views about Communism if you were a Chinese man living in China? Or is anybody who supports their societal structure wrong,
or just wrong in your eyes?

Lying is immoral and murder is immoral. That's not an opinion but a fact. Sorry relativists - that never changes. There's not situation that makes
lying moral .

According to who's morals? Once again, Whammy, you are trying to appeal to my own to use that as a means of getting me to agree that the above
statement is correct when it is in fact, not. That is, in fact, an opinion, and NOT a fact.

It is always relativism that causes despotism. If there are no absolute morals then morality is subject to personal opinion.

Once again, according to who's morals? It is people who view THEIR views above others, as you are showing here Whammy, who are responsible for
forcing their views upon others.

If the government passed a law that forces women to have rape babies - Then by the logic you used against me - it is it wrong for you to shout about
forcing women to have rape babies. After all you would be trying to force your view on others. We can't have that.

You are again trying to appeal to my morals which I have learned over time as to what I feel are the more appropriate ways to act.

Would others think US crazy for having ___________ illegal? (Fill in SEVERAL things here). You betcha.

In fact it is the objective Moral Law that both you and I are both appealing to make that judgement.

Perhaps you should correct that to say 'some of the shared moral views we have...'

It is somehow natural and yet evolution does not explain it. Evolution says we fight to survive. Morality tells us we "ought" to do something even
if it is not to our advantage.

Morality was ALSO created and passed along to help with survival.

Think of a Mexican apple thief. He's taught that stealing is wrong so that society can continue to function and people's apples and food and other
supplies don't just continue to get taken by others, and those beliefs are passed along through generations. Morals are created so that society and
civilization can function.

Morals are not 'discovered' like you have been trying to convince others of, they are not floating in the air waiting for you to find them, and then
forcing you to wait for the rest of the world to catch up. There are different ways to go about, this is where different cultures come in. Different
ways to evolve and handle things are real.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.